Scientist Craig Venter Has Created Artificial Life

[porchrat]

With all due respect, this is not the first time you have made such elementary mistakes (we are only human after all).

Of course. I type fast and don't put a heck of a lot of consideration into every word I put in here. This isn't a thesis it is a forum after all.

I was just trying to help you and correct your faulty view, you don't need to tell me what to do or how to do it .

Simple mistake, not a faulty view. Like I said you know my background, (of course you do because you assume I know what horizontal gene transfer is) so making that assumption was silly.

In the future if you're going to try to dance around the error instead of just pointing it out please inform me ahead of time so I can place you on ignore until you're finished.

 

[wily me]

Yes and that is a great achievement. It doesn't change the validity of my comment on the previous quote... you know... the one I was actually talking about.



I get upset about it because I don't like seeing legitimate and interesting science blown up into something it isn't.

What was achieved was amazing in and of itself but making it out to be something it isn't is counter productive.



I'm hardly an expert. I just know enough to find scientific journalism at time sensationalist.

So tell a non expert like me 'what it is not" as I am confused. It is an artificial cell with synthesized DNA capable of self replication as far as I understood the information I linked to, thus a creation of primitive single cell life, not?

 

[h0ll0w]

Seriously man if you have nothing positive to add rather just go away this constant attacking is getting old.

Hey at least I used the sarcasm warning.

 

[porchrat]

Hey at least I used the sarcasm warning.

Much appreciated. I once again would have missed it (being entirely genuine here).

 

[porchrat]

So tell a non expert like me 'what it is not" as I am confused. It is an artificial cell with synthesized DNA capable of self replication as far as I understood the information I linked to, thus a creation of primitive single cell life, not?

They treat this as though it isn't the next step from what people have been doing for decades. It is pumped up as something huge. Yes it was an amazing accomplishment. It is so far the most complex undertaking that I am aware of in the field. However artificial life wasn't created in a true sense. From what I understand they took various pieces of already existing life (organelles from other creatures etc.) along with a few synthesised components and glued them together like a Frankenstein's monster.

It wasn't made from scratch which is the implication created by a lot of the science journalists reporting on the matter and it wasn't "not merely copying life artificially ... or modifying it radically by genetic engineering. He is going towards the role of a god: creating artificial life that could never have existed naturally. ".

There is nothing to suggest that this life couldn't exist naturally and it is radical genetic engineering, just on a scale never successfully achieved before. Why say stuff that isn't true? Why pump this up and put it forward as something it isn't? Just what was achieved is impressive enough without having to add nonsense on top of it.

 

[wily me]

They treat this as though it isn't the next step from what people have been doing for decades. It is pumped up as something huge. Yes it was an amazing accomplishment. It is so far the most complex undertaking that I am aware of in the field. However artificial life wasn't created in a true sense. From what I understand they took various pieces of already existing life (organelles from other creatures etc.) along with a few synthesised components and glued them together like a Frankenstein's monster.

It wasn't made from scratch which is the implication created by a lot of the science journalists reporting on the matter and it wasn't "not merely copying life artificially ... or modifying it radically by genetic engineering. He is going towards the role of a god: creating artificial life that could never have existed naturally. ".

There is nothing to suggest that this life couldn't exist naturally and it is radical genetic engineering, just on a scale never successfully achieved before. Why say stuff that isn't true? Why pump this up and put it forward as something it isn't? Just what was achieved is impressive enough without having to add nonsense on top of it.

I still do not get what is not true. Please dissect the information and point out the errors or lies. This is an serious accusation against a well established and popular scientist. I will also research it further and report back whatever I find.

 

[Techne]

Of course. I type fast and don't put a heck of a lot of consideration into every word I put in here. This isn't a thesis it is a forum after all.



Simple mistake, not a faulty view. Like I said you know my background, (of course you do because you assume I know what horizontal gene transfer is) so making that assumption was silly.

In the future if you're going to try to dance around the error instead of just pointing it out please inform me ahead of time so I can place you on ignore until you're finished.

Like I said chap, no need for you tell others what or what not to do .

 

[porchrat]

I still do not get what is not true. Please dissect the information and point out the errors or lies. This is an serious accusation against a well established and popular scientist. I will also research it further and report back whatever I find.

What well established and popular scientist is being accused of something? and what exactly is this scientist being accused of?

 

[porchrat]

Like I said chap, no need for you tell others what or what not to do .

All I'm asking for is to be informed of exactly what I'm getting into up front so that I can make an informed decision on whether or not to participate. I have this right and I don't think it is unreasonable to expect this.

 

[wily me]

Here is a site with "debunk" information. Sounds more like sour grapes.

http://araygor.netfirms.com/?p=13

Maybe watch a video of the real mcoy will make matters clear. I do not understand the people against this achievement or like Venter calls it, a tool to be used.

[video=youtube;QHIocNOHd7A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHIocNOHd7A&feature=player_embedded#![/video]

 

[porchrat]

Here is a site with "debunk" information. Sounds more like sour grapes.

http://araygor.netfirms.com/?p=13

Maybe watch a video of the real mcoy will make matters clear. I do not understand the people against this achievement or like Venter calls it, a tool to be used.

If you're thinking I'm against his achievement then you have entirely misunderstood me. What he has achieved is awesome. However it isn't what many of the science journalists say it is. They are doing science a disservice by stretching the truth. What has been achieved by this team is great in and of itself, there is no need for sensationalism.

In fact to me the sensationalism surrounding this achievement is a slap in the face to these researchers because it implies that what they have actually achieved is not exciting enough and so it needs to be jazzed up to keep the punters amused.

 

[Techne]

All I'm asking for is to be informed of exactly what I'm getting into up front so that I can make an informed decision on whether or not to participate. I have this right and I don't think it is unreasonable to expect this.

To be fair, you could have just bowed out of this a long time ago after acknowledging your mistake.

At least we can agree on one; Science sensationalism is wrong.

 

[wily me]

I like this man, Straight and honest. [video]http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7369820n[/video]

 

[porchrat]

To be fair, you could have just bowed out of this a long time ago after acknowledging your mistake.

I acknowledged my mistake the minute you pointed it out.

Like I said please in the future just inform me when you aren't going to point out what is an obvious mistake straight away and instead are going to dance around it. I think this is a fair and reasonable request.

 

[Techne]

I acknowledged my mistake the minute you pointed it out.

Like I said please in the future just inform me when you aren't going to point out what is an obvious mistake straight away and instead are going to dance around it. I think this is a fair and reasonable request.

Haha porchie, you'ra a funny person, I'll give you that. Moving along...

 

[porchrat]

Haha porchie, you'ra a funny person, I'll give you that.

What is funny? I admitted my mistake here. No joking required. I did however think that the fact that it was a simple mistake would be obvious considering our history.

Unless you're talking about me wanting to know up front what I'm getting myself into with you I don't see the joke. I don't like messing around for pages upon pages over a single word like you seem to. I want to avoid this in the future so I'm asking for your consideration is all.

 

[Techne]

Trust me, no matter how I or anyone else point out your mistakes, there will be dancing around the issue. Come on porchie, that is how we have come to know you, its you, it's part of your nature. You're still doing the old danceroo. Move along chap.

 

[Techne]

Let me explain your dance here (since you are accusing me of doing the dancing).

You did a two step: "Genetic engineering IS creating artificial life that could never have existed naturally.

I mean does Professor Julian Savulescu think viral vectors carrying artificially created Insulin analogue encoding genes that cannot self replicate could have existed naturally?"

You made 1 obvious mistake and one potential mistake.
1) Genetic engineering IS NOT creating artificial life that could never have existed naturally.
2) Viral vectors don't self-replicate anyway. But viral vectors can replicate and insulin analogue genes can replicate and exist without human intervention.

I pointed out mistake 1. I didn't think much of the potential 2nd mistake at first. You acknowledged the first mistake and could have left it there. Instead, you wanted to dance a little and you waltzed a little: "However you can be damn sure that viral vectors that carry genes for human Insulin analogues and can't replicate could not exist in nature or if they ever did did so for a few seconds before they became extinct."

And the dancing continued...

Next time just move along?

 

[WatchMan]

5 thread pages and not a damn thing has been said. You guys are pathetic....

 

[Techne]

5 thread pages and not a damn thing has been said. You guys are pathetic....

Are we pathetic because we didn't say a damn thing? If so, in that case welcome to the club of pathetic .